• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    DeepMind Framed Early AI Safety Work in ML Language

    Pedro Ortega recalls DeepMind's early strategy of framing AI safety in machine learning terms.

    SL
    PA
    2 Sources, 30d ago, first seen 30d ago

    TLDR

    Pedro A. Ortega, former leader of the AI Safety Team at Google DeepMind, posted about the group's initial approach to the topic. He stated that AI safety was viewed as fringe at the time. The team therefore cast problems in machine learning language and reduced explicit references to philosophy. Ortega noted that a link to thinkers such as Foucault would not have been viable. The post references the Medium article 'Building safe artificial intelligence: specification, robustness, and assurance' written with Vishal Maini and the DeepMind safety team.

    Combined views

    147

    2 Sources, first seen 30d ago

    Combined views

    147

    2 Sources, first seen 30d ago

    1 comments
    1 comments

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    2 Sources

    @AdaptiveAgentsAt the time, AI safety was still considered a fringe topic, not really a legitimate part of AI. Our strategy was to formulate the problems in ML language and minimize explicit references to philosophy. Establishing a link to, say, Foucault would have been a non-starter. If you squint a little, you will recognize the Foucauldian influence in the "Assurance" part of our original agenda: monitoring and controlling deployed systems, human inspection, enforcement, and mechanisms for restricting behaviour. But yes, granted, we did not publish on concentration of power. https://deepmindsafetyresearch.medium.com/building-safe-artificial-intelligence-52f5f75058f1
    @sethlazar@AdaptiveAgents yep GDM safety (as well as sociotechnical alignment with William Isaac) would have been the exception that proves the rule for sure.

    2 Sources

    @AdaptiveAgentsAt the time, AI safety was still considered a fringe topic, not really a legitimate part of AI. Our strategy was to formulate the problems in ML language and minimize explicit references to philosophy. Establishing a link to, say, Foucault would have been a non-starter. If you squint a little, you will recognize the Foucauldian influence in the "Assurance" part of our original agenda: monitoring and controlling deployed systems, human inspection, enforcement, and mechanisms for restricting behaviour. But yes, granted, we did not publish on concentration of power. https://deepmindsafetyresearch.medium.com/building-safe-artificial-intelligence-52f5f75058f1
    @sethlazar@AdaptiveAgents yep GDM safety (as well as sociotechnical alignment with William Isaac) would have been the exception that proves the rule for sure.